Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Linux Code of Conduct Revisions: CoC Committee Added Plus Interpretation & Mediator

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by rabcor View Post
    the first alarm bell is that she's a woman... In a nutshell: Don't fall for this guys.
    Sigh...

    Comment


    • #12
      Maybe it's the area and culture I grew up in, I didn't think people could have masculinity complexes this bad, but here I am reading this thread....

      Comment


      • #13
        It's still a marxist political statement, and it has absolutely *zero* place in open source, ever.

        Comment


        • #14
          This is not a big enough document that it would help by crowdsourcing the text. If you've seen even the previous forum discussions here about it, you can imagine that would end in nothing more than an unproductive mess.

          The communities worries (short of complete removal of the CoC) are clearly addressed, and these new changes are still up for public discussion before merging.

          I'd say that even if you have your reservations about the document, then the process this has gone through, the clear limitations in scope, the added transparency, and the reassertion of the Linux kernel communities priorities make this at least one of the better CoC adoptions.

          The initial inclusion was contentious, but this process is definitely what we want as an example moving forward; not only for the Linux kernel, but for any other project looking to include a CoC.

          Comment


          • #15
            Using terms like "SJW" poisons the well. Lumping people in a group and labeling them as being unable to reason you are sabotages the opportunity for constructive discord by creating an us vs them mentality.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
              Using terms like "SJW" poisons the well. Lumping people in a group and labeling them as being unable to reason you are sabotages the opportunity for constructive discord by creating an us vs them mentality.
              you mean like labelling someone a "Rape apologist" as means to somehow push their vote on the inclusion of the CoC is irrelevant when whether they are or not is irrelevant to voting on the inclusion of such terms. (in this case "rape apologist" would be classed as liable if you look at what was stated NOT what was span)
              https://twitter.com/_sagesharp_/stat...69399596437504

              Or the maintainers of the Contributors covenant not acting on man hating
              https://github.com/ContributorCovena...ant/issues/278

              Or the fact its inclusion is politically motivated not in bounding a civil coding environment
              https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/stat...65346656530432

              Or rejecting requests to to the Contributors covenant simply because the aim of the Contributors covenant is to push a subset inclusion NOT remove any hostile environment
              https://github.com/ContributorCovena...ant/issues/610


              Its ok to assign a label and then attack someone based upon that non-valid label ONLY if you are from the left...


              The CoC in principal is ok-ish, the Code of Conflict could have been enforced. The issue is the Code of Conduct now pushes how people should act as oppose to how they shouldn't. It explicitly want to accept opinion over facts, it explicitly want to protect a subset not provide a general "be good to everybody)
              Last edited by Naib; 10-20-2018, 03:06 PM.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by cb88 View Post

                That's how you boil a frog, slowly by degrees.
                Which is why I hope the will be a loud uproar should the current interpretation - which I find acceptable - ever change for something more restrictive. I also do not find the existence of an interpretation document particularly bad. It is not uncommon for laws to come with implementing decrees that discuss concrete points of applicability of a given law. Given how CoCs are usually phrased I actually find it to be beneficial.

                I suppose that a kind of "dictatorial" CoC for the kernel may actually be a bigger danger for other smaller projects than the kernel itself. There is far too much money behind the kernel and the big fish are not going to have their businesses derailed by a bunch of SJW hissy fits. Smaller projects could, however, be pushed to adopt a CoC more strongly on the grounds that "all the cool kids" now have one...

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Naib View Post
                  The CoC in principal is ok-ish, the Code of Conflict could have been enforced. The issue is the Code of Conduct now pushes how people should act as oppose to how they shouldn't. It explicitly want to accept opinion over facts, it explicitly want to protect a subset not provide a general "be good to everybody)
                  This document includes the first paragraph of the Code of Conflict verbatim. It's a clear nod to those who wanted a complete revert. The rest of the Code of Conflict is instructions for when problems arise, which the new CoC outlines and this new document clarifies. Also, not modifying the CoC itself avoids the trap of watering down the Linux kernel community's presentation of itself as inclusive and its commitment to addressing problems.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Or to put this into coding terms, if a CoC is an abstraction layer to facilitate reasonable communication, your abstraction layer now requires calling an interpreter layer to function correctly.

                    *Sigh* How long until this devolves into spaghetti code?

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by BwackNinja View Post
                      (...) avoids the trap of watering down the Linux kernel community's presentation of itself as inclusive and its commitment to addressing problems.
                      What trap ? Is it desirable to look "inclusive" ? This "inclusive" stuff looks like it comes from Mounty Python's Life Of Brian. The "Man woman and hermaphrodite" passage at the end when Brian is on the cross.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X